Introduction
Modern sociology is rooted in the works of Max Weber and Karl Marks, who laid the foundations of the capitalist and communist views of history, the society, and mechanisms affecting the lives of every citizen on a daily basis (Sayer, p. 2). The purpose of their endeavors was to evaluate and study the society and its performance under certain economic conditions as well as pinpoint the reasons for the societies arriving at where they were. Marx is known for taking an evolutionary perspective on societal development, stating that communism was the logical next step in the development of society (Sayer, p. 3). Weber, on the other hand, sustained that social evolution was motivated by religion and material interests (Sayer, p. 3). The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast these theories and highlight similarities and differences between the two.
Comparative Views on Capitalism
The first difference between the two schools of thought lies in the perception of capitalism and its existence in society. Weber believed that the practice emerged from the shift of cultural values from the spiritual to the materialist (Calhoun et al, p. 293). His works emphasize the elective nature of the values found in the spirit of Capitalism and the protestant ethic. For one, he points out the correlation between adhering to the protestant ethic and the pursuit of a worldly calling, often in the form of business (Calhoun et al, p. 294). He attributes the desire to pursue a profit to Calvinist influence, who perceived wealth as a sign of divine favor. Marx’s views on capitalism were negative, as he claimed that the practice emerges long before Protestantism and Calvinism came into existence, with the exploitation of classes coming from the appropriation of land from peasants and the exploitation of their labor for personal gain (Sayer, p. 38). Capitalism, as a society, was seen by him as yet another tool to suppress and exploit the masses. Weber, on the other hand, saw capitalism as a natural progression from the protestant rule of “keeping the hands busy,” stating that “idle hands do devil’s work” (Calhoun et al, p. 295)
Comparative Views on Labor
Both Marx and Weber agree that labor is a positive activity that should be praised and not shunned. However, the distinction lies in the comparison of the status of those who perform labor to other classes. Marx viewed labor as the highest form of occupation, without which any society would not be able to survive (Sayer, p. 50). As such, he believed that workers had the inherent right to reap all the benefits for the work they produced, rather than have it be appropriated by the organizational/owner class. Weber, on the other hand, saw individuals who exuded a higher mental capacity and used it to organize endeavors to be a higher class than workers and acknowledged their right to exercise dominion over lesser men, even if it meant taking away the benefits of their labor (Calhoun et al, p. 322).
Views on Societal Development and Economics
The primary difference in Marx’s and Weber’s analyses of economic development lies in the linearity of the process. Weber believed that there are many historical, social, religious, and economic conditions that shape the development of societies (p. 47). Thus, he acknowledged the possibility that cultures and people could evolve independently from one another and establish different economic systems to suit their needs. Marx disagreed with that notion, stating that while certain differences did exist between cultures, the society as a whole was on a universal path of economic progression (Sayer, p. 120). In his view, a communist society was the next logical step in that progression.
Historical Parallels and Predictions
Both theories extensively utilized history in their analysis. Weber’s theory, in particular, heavily relies on studying history and interpreting how societies operate (Calhoun et al, p. 300). He considers religion to be a force in shaping societies and their economic systems, as seen in his connection of the spirit of capitalism with the notions of Protestant morality (Weber, p. 53). At the same time, his view is firmly rooted in the past and offers no clear guidelines for the future. Marx’s theory, while utilizing historical parallels to demonstrate the subjugation of the working class as a history-long struggle, acknowledges religion only as one of the many tools used to ensure compliance from the lower classes, in order to satisfy the rich and powerful (Calhoun, p. 198). He believes that it is not divine favor or will that determine the course of history, but the access to resources. Marx also has a far-reaching on how future societies should operate (Sayer, p. 150). Many communist and socialist societies tried to build economies based on their work.
Points of Agreement
As exemplified above, Marx and Weber’s accounts of societal mechanisms significantly differ one from another. At the same time, the two sociologists agreed on certain points in regard to Capitalism. The first and most crucial point of agreement was that Capitalism had a negative effect on the desires of people. Marx claimed that the current cycle of exploitation was meant to turn people into wage slaves by allowing money to influence all interactions that humans have with one another (Sayer, p. 20). According to Marx, the regular feelings and senses are replaced by greed and awareness of commodities one does or does not have (Sayer, p. 21).
Weber agrees with that assessment of the situation, to a large degree. He states that although Calvinism had a significant influence on the development of Capitalist morality, it merely offered a religious framework to support the processes already experienced by society (Weber, p. 55). Although his account spoke only of western-style capitalism, the critical flaw in it was described in making money as a goal favorable to the pursuit of happiness. This ties in with Marx’s account that all interactions and feelings (including happiness) could be monetized, thus making the accumulation of resources the ultimate purpose in life.
Both philosophers acknowledge the materialist component of societal development as primary, whereas the ideological one as secondary in determining the course of history. Marx states that ideas are generated by the conditions the people are living in, with invention driven by a need not met by the existing tools and supplies, and the scope of enlightenment limited by our perceptions of the material world (Calhoun et al, p. 183). Weber agrees on material interests being the driving force behind historical developments (Weber, p. 55). Because of this, he claimed that while Calvinism was instrumental to the popularization of Capitalism in the West, some form of it would have been created eventually, motivated by the human need to create, crave, and acquire.
Conclusions
Marx and Weber have many differences in regards to the role of capitalism in society, the ethical and rights perspectives on labor, and the views on economics and societal development. Nevertheless, they agree on the materialistic motivations behind the existence of Capitalism and admit that the pursuit of wealth and items as the main source of happiness is irrational, if not harmful. Weber’s theory can be used to understand the history of capitalism and its connection to religion, whereas Marx’s theory is better used as a model for potential future developments and as a critique of capitalism as an economic system.
References
- Calhoun, Craig, et al. Classical Sociological Theory. 3rd ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
- Sayer, Derek. Capitalism and Modernity: An Excursus on Marx and Weber. Routledge, 2002.
- Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Penguin Press, 2002.